I think we agree Deng isn't playing any better than he always has, or whatever. Take a look at these top SF rankings from a year earlier. As I wrote earlier, Deng is left standing as one of the better SFs because there's a whole slew of them who've gotten old or injured or otherwise had their games decline (Artest, Rashard Lewis, Hedo, Butler, Jefferson, Marion, Prince to name a few). http://ballerblogger.com/2009/09/28/position-rankings-small-forwards/
And all these years I thought you and Reinsdorf were thick as thieves. The Bulls have not had a single player in the post-dynasty era that they've failed to pay who is remotely as good as Kobe, Gasol, Bynum or Odom. Paying lesser players big money is just stupid. In fact, the worst move (in hindsight) the Bulls have made in the post-dynasty era was overpaying Ben Wallace, a mistake that hurt the team for 3 years. I've never understood why fans have characterized Reinsdorf as a money-grubbing exploiter of fans when the same fans criticize him for overpaying people like Wallace, Hinrich and Deng. Which is it? The answer is simple to me. Those fans are simply dissatisfied with the end result. This is where I come together with the chronic complainers. We all want the Bulls to win.
I feel like I can't agree with the general reach of this article. I've always been a fan of Deng and thought his contract was worth his play. But this year has been better, and the crush from the RealGM crowd isn't only based on the improved team record. I think you covered two of the four prongs that make this year decidedly different: (1) three point shooting and (2) health. I'd like to add two more. Deng's defense, first, is better this year, although it's always been pretty good. And most importantly, he's closing games like he never has. That changes everything. Deng's numbers in years past were horrific in the last five minutes of games. This season, he has been second to Rose, in providing clutch scoring. That's a huge development that should not be ignored.
When I wrote that the media has done a 180 on Deng, this is what I'm talking about link IMO, there's no way this article sees the light of day 3 months ago...and that's the point of my article. Wait. I'm listening to the Score. Joe Bartosh is the weekend host. He just said that Deng should get the NBA's "Most Improved Player" and that he's a completely different player this season. I rest my case.
SST, I love you man, but I'm about to go all "Denny" on your ass. According to 82games.com, Deng's "clutch performance" (4th quarter or overtime, less than 5 minutes left, neither team ahead by more than 5 points) this season is that he scores a less-than-spectacular 12.0 points per 48 minutes with a eFG% of 40.0%. Last season he scored 19.0 points per 48 in "clutch time" with a 41.5% eFG%. Perception versus reality. I rest my case...again.
But we did pay lesser players big money all along. Their names were PJ Brown, Ben Wallace, Antonio Davis, Tim Thomas, Brad Miller, Larry Hughes - and those are guys making $9M or more. We also paid Kirk Hinrich, Andres Nocioni, and Tyson Chandler big bucks. There were plenty of others who clearly gave the Bulls no hope of advancing in the playoffs: Jerome James, Tim Thomas (2nd time around), Adrian Griffin, etc. Meanwhile, we gave away talent who could have been paid that money: Gordon, Curry, Crawford, Chandler, and LaMarcus Aldridge. I like my chances with those guys better than with Tim Thomas type players. And I do believe that the beatings those guys took in the press (not LMA) and being traded to teams in bad situations did hurt their careers. As far as paying the big contracts, the Bulls had to. There's a minimum a team has to pay in the CBA, and it was the Bulls strategy to trade awful players on big contracts for awful players on big contracts as if it were financial flexibility.
A realist would have taken any of those guys (and more, like Josh Howard) over Deng a season earlier. I agree I'd take Deng over these players this season. I wouldn't in Deng's best seasons, which puts it in persepective.
Very good article. Really, this place is not a good incubator Luol Deng articles. Like you said, the fan base here is more steady and less swayed by popular opinion. As a board we all tend to shy away from sensational opinions. This is especially true with Luol Deng. While sports radio and younger boards have had Luol slug-fests, I don't think this board ever touched on the issue very much. Not even once. So we're pretty ho-hum about him here. I think the perception of Luol Deng says more about fans than it does him as a player. On the court he really hasn't changed too much at all, except for some incremental improvements every year. He's a system player, but a damn good one. I don't think Luol's ever had it in him to be the man. I never resonated with the fan base that tore him down for that. What were they thinking anyway? Luol's good enough to get paid more than the MLE but h'es not a max player. That puts his market value firmly in NBA lala land, a place that never pleases all fans. Luol is not helped by the fact that his game is not aesthetically pleasing and he excels in the more nuanced parts of the game. Personally, I've never regretted having Luol on the team, contract and all. Go Lu!
Because he was getting paid like he was the man. Because he held out for more money when he was offered a fair contract for his skills. Because when this team was supposed to be built around a "core 4" "Pistons Model" where he was the best player (Hinrich, Nocioni, Deng, Gordon (really?!?!?)) he clearly wasn't the man. Now that he's the 4th man on a good team, there are no expectations for him anymore. The Bulls are winning, all is good. And he is a good player. Unless the contract causes strife in the future, its all good as long as we're winning.
Is that a threat? It really is hard to complain about Luol at this point. Would we have been better off to have built around Gordon? It's impossible to say. I was definitely sorry to see him go. I probably would have kept him over Hinrich. But at the moment, for obvious reasons, I'm glad Luol is the one who stayed.
I'm pretty sure we could have kept deng and one of Hinrich or Gordon and still signed boozer and one or two of korver/brewer/Watson.
Sure, but you would lose on the option value to sign 2 big studs last off-season. With perfect hindsight, it's hard to bash the bulls for not signing Gordon. It's was the right move.
True. But it would surely be a more attractive proposition for one FA. The risk is you end up with a lot of cap space used on fringe players and no ability to approach the LT. Miami isn't as good as expectations... You think they might be better off if they kept Beasley?
